Dorothy Clark Canfield v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 221st District Court of Montgomery County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-09-00095-CR NO. 09-09-00096-CR NO. 09-09-00097-CR ____________________ DOROTHY CLARK CANFIELD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 08-05-04528-CR, 08-05-04733-CR, and 08-05-04734-CR _____________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Dorothy Clark Canfield entered non-negotiated guilty pleas to an indictment for theft of property or services of the value of at least $1,500 but less than $20,000. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2009); TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 31.04(a), (e)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2009). In each case, the trial court convicted Canfield and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. 1 On appeal, Canfield s counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On December 17, 2009, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. The appellant filed a pro se response. We reviewed the appellate records and the pro se response, and we agree with counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgments.2 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on April 26, 2010 Opinion Delivered May 5, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 2 Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
